What’s wrong with personality politics?
published 13 Oct 2008, MST
It is less than a month before the presidential elections in the United States, and it is apparent that the enthusiasm is not limited to Americans. CNN is making a special feature on the polls as perceived from outside the US. Some of us are even keen on following the debates—and deriving, at the very least, entertainment out of it.
It is not difficult to imagine why.
First, the fight between the Democrats and the Republicans is a respite from the convenience-driven “party” politics that we know so well here. We are so used to seeing our politicians crossing over to other camps if doing so has become expedient for their personal purposes. And if there is nothing to cross over to, one then only forms his own group and tries to build his own base.
But should this base prove inadequate, there is another option—to “join forces” or form a coalition with other groups. In the meantime, these politicians’ opinions on how to keep the population down to a manageable level, or how to look at—and correct—the migration phenomenon, whether or not to change what provisions in the Constitution and when, are limited to nebulous generalizations. If there is anything at all, how can the public be sure their views will be the same tomorrow?
So here is Americans’ black-or-white system, with a little provision for the gray in the case of independents. Even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had to slug it out for the Democratic Party’s nomination. In the end, Obama was the man. In fact, Mrs. Clinton, as well as her husband, were gracious enough to exhort people to vote for, well, Obama. Their speeches were the highlights of the Democratic convention—aside from that nice performance by John Legend, by the way. Elsewhere in the world, Hillary may have just bolted the party and founded her own. Then she can run for president as well.
Second, the elections come at difficult time. America’s financial system is in ruins, brought about by years of credit-driven spending, really just a failure to exercise prudence because the prosperity felt oh-so-good. Everybody, from the executives of banks to real estate brokers down to home buyers who had in fact had no idea how they were going to keep up with the payments, went ahead and did their thing, anyway.
And now with the $700-billion bailout, the government is stepping in to take control. The money is taxpayers’ so that now Americans’ concern is how efficiently their money would be used to reform an industry driven to its knees by greed. They want to know how their next leader can get them back to better days.
This is of interest to the rest of the world as well. The United States is not some obscure country. It continues to be a world leader, although its dominance has been counter-balanced by the emergence of the European Union and even China. Nonetheless, the US enjoys considerable clout, if not politically (why else would foreign policy figure so prominently in the debates?) then economically and psychologically. World markets still take the cue from Wall Street. Banks and insurance companies do not operate within the US alone, and big businesses have vast international presence. Likewise, foreign funds are exposed to American firms in all imaginable sectors. Indeed it’s a shrinking world.
Here at home, US developments are also closely watched. It remains one of our single biggest trading partners. It is also a source of remittances. Our nurses, teachers and other professionals continue to hope they would one day live and work in the proverbial land of milk and honey. Seeing that the US is not anymore so, many are wondering whether a turnaround could be effected soon.
Third, the race to the White House is followed by many because it is a contest between personalities. It may be ideal for some to think of elections as being based on issues, not on personalities. But the issue and the personality cannot be mutually exclusive. The latter should be based on the former. Personality politics is only undesirable when there is no substance to back up the hype.
So imagine a young and dynamic Black man who promises real change going against an aging White conservative who says he’s been there and done that. Why, Obama and John McCain are stereotypes, all right. But their sometimes-different, sometimes-similar stand on various issues, and their knowledge of the subject matters of which they speak, coming from their individual backgrounds, only make their competition richer, more riveting.
It’s a different story with the vice presidential candidates, who were both chosen to temper their running mates’ (perceived) weak points. For example, Joe Biden looks sober, intelligent and thorough, even stoic, where Obama is charismatic and eloquent. On the other hand, Sarah Palin is folksy and pretty and looks like she could engage ordinary Americans in conversation about their day-to-day struggles. But she has a lot of baggage of her own—and her fellow Republicans constantly worry she will end up saying the wrong things and thus try to minimize opportunities for gaffes. Now why does that sound so familiar?
But how does one define substance? Is it an eight-page resume? Decades of hands-on executive experience? Natural intelligence? The number of world figures one counts as friends? The number of “exposes” and initiated investigations? Mileage in media on the pretense of speaking on (or against) something-or-other?
There’s another debate this week, the last before Nov. 4. It should be another interesting day.
***
In my column of Sept. 8 (Her warrior heart), I wrote about my friend Tummy who had been battling hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and its complications for years.
My friend passed away last Wednesday, Oct. 8. My deepest condolences to the family. Tummy put up a good fight and inspired many in doing so. She will be missed, and sorely.
adelle_tulagan@yahoo.com
